71 Comments

1. Mike Silverman:

She was pretty well unqualified, so I am not crying too hard over her withdrawl, but on the other hand, if the religious right hated her so much, she must have had her good points!

Oct 27, 2005 - 7:01 am 2. scott:

Now he can nominate someone with real credentials,but he has shot himself in the foot so badly that I don’t know what’s going to happen.George,we hardly knew ye…

Oct 27, 2005 - 7:03 am 3. Mark Poling:

To answer Roger, the AP was Shocked! Shocked! at the Miers withdrawal.

Clueless or simply acting stupid: you decide.

Oct 27, 2005 - 7:07 am 4. David Thomson:

Oct 27, 2005 - 7:13 am 5. jerry:

Congratulations to the non-religious right for successful stopping this nomination. Do you think the President is going to pick one your favorites? Guess again, you are going to get a one-for-one replacement for O’Conner if your lucky. Presidents don’t get mad, they don’t get even, they get ahead.

(Note to Mike Silverman: I am amused by your association of the “religious right” with the opposition. They were solidly behind her.)

(Note to Daivd Thomson: Don’t take Mike’s intellectual confusion as evidence for Miers being “Something of an intellectual chameleon. Her views are not that flexible.)

Oct 27, 2005 - 7:27 am 6. David Thomson:

Oct 27, 2005 - 7:35 am 7. Richard Nieporent:

The White House said Miers had to withdraw over concerns that senators wanted documents of privileged discussions between the president and his top lawyer.

Chalk one up for of Charles Krauthammer. The administration used his scenario for ending the nomination.

Oct 27, 2005 - 7:37 am 8. David Thomson:

Oct 27, 2005 - 7:50 am 9. jerry:

David:

Her views appear to have changed over time in direct relationship to her changing religious outlook. The change was in the conservative direction.

As I said in an early thread, Conservatives have argued that the President has a right to chose who he wants unless of course the appoitee doesn’t meet with there approval. Conservatives will rue the day that they shot down Bush’s choice.

Oct 27, 2005 - 8:04 am 10. Pat Curley:

I’m not surprised; Tradesports has shown her for a couple days as unlikely to be confirmed, but (oddly enough) likely to get 50 votes in the Senate. The only way to make sense of that is that the market was betting she’d be withdrawn.

Michael Silverman, that’s the line that the media have been feeding you. It’s a reflection of how out of touch they are that they think the Christian Conservatives are the ones who opposed Miers.

Let’s hope that all those who opposed this nomination are proven right that we can get a legit conservative (e.g., Luttig, McConnell) through the process. If they’re wrong, they end up with egg on their faces (and we end up with Miguel Estrada as the third nominee).

I’m glad the in-fighting is over. How much you want to bet that Cindy Sheehan bitches that it’s all a plot to draw coverage away from her pathetic little protests?

Oct 27, 2005 - 8:10 am 11. thibaud:

Does Bush realize how lucky he is to have been spared the consequences of his foolish and, frankly, rotten little stunt?

Bush’s stubbornness is his greatest strength (as in refusing to talk to Arafat nad refusing to cut and run from Iraq) and his greatest weakness (as in persisting in nominating his personal lawyer despite the obvious conflict it presents). Hubris always works that way.

Oct 27, 2005 - 8:33 am 12. PJ:

Right, Richard, Krauthammer is the smartest man in Washington today!

Oct 27, 2005 - 8:38 am 13. jedrury:

Depending on what happens very soon with the

leak investigation, the wisdom of the withdrawal

may be obvious. Miers was a complete and unnecessary distraction to, and bungle by, the president who needs his conservative base and this nomination alienated it. Focus is needed; focus on Iraq, focus on the leak and its aftermath, and, long term focus on the elections of 2006. These political commentators [Krauthammer, Kristol, From, Bork, etc.] are the intellectual and policy flank for this administration and for the conservative movement. Ignoring their valid concerns and sage advice in the next SC nomination is myopic. Miffed or not, the president should not nominate Gonzalez, but nominate a true and trusted conservative jurist and saddle for the fight against the Schumers and Kennedys. However, soothing the words of Harry Reid at this moment, the president should never forget Harry will turn on him in a Las Vegas second.

Oct 27, 2005 - 9:06 am 14. Kevin P:

Mike:

The bulk of the open support from conservatives for the Miers pick was from the religous right. Many of the Religous Right’s most vocal leaders backed Miers. The Corner was at the head of the dump Miers coalition and I would associate them more with the neo-con or political right rather then the religous right.

I was not a big fan of the Miers pick but the one thing I have not heard from the dump Miers side is their head count on the judiciary or from the gang of 14. If one of their favorites does not get out of committee or if McCain’s cabal upholds the Senate fillibuster the President will have to go on his knee’s to Sen. Reid and will be a political cripple. The dump Mier’s crowd has used many of the arguments that the anti -Roberts dems used and can no longer attack them as they did during the Roberts fight. This could get ugly.

Oct 27, 2005 - 9:09 am 15. Xixi:

All the negative anti-Miers pundits can now claim victory, for what that’s worth.

Pundits congratulating pundits ain’t a hell of a lot different than the MSM congratulating the MSM.

Oct 27, 2005 - 9:14 am 16. neo-neocon:

Surprise or no, it’s a relief.

Now we don’t have to hear any more bickering about Miers, but we’ll never know how she would actually have performed in the hearings. Most people think they know, but I wasn’t sure. However, it’s better this way–much better. I can handle my curiosity never being satisfied.

Now, who next? It will be very interesting to see whether Bush decides to stick it to his “loyal” opposition, or do what they want.

Oct 27, 2005 - 9:23 am 17. flenser:

Kevin P

Specters job is to get the Republican nominee through the committee. If he fails to do so, or votes against the nominee, he can and should be replaced.

If McCain wants to vote against a mainstream Republican justice being appointed to the Supreme Court, that is his prerogative. Since it would end any hope he may have of winning the presidential nomination for ‘08, I doubt that he will do so.

Oct 27, 2005 - 9:28 am 18. thibaud:

The Miers debacle showed, among other things, the reductio ad absurdam of affirmative action logic. Apparently (acc to John Fund’s White House sources) Bush determined at the outset that he would nominate a woman, and then all of the credible, qualified female candidates were eliminated for various reasons (Brown as too difficult to get nominated, Jones IIRC as having some “family issues” etc), leaving Miers as the only woman on the list.

And this is a supposedly conservative presidential admin that’s getting tripped up by affirmative action nonsense!

On a related note I see that the latest entering class at UC Calif at Berkeley is 45% asian-american while afr-amers account for only 5% or so of new entrants, prompting the PC univ chancellor to call for drastic action to increase the abysmally low afr-amer and hisp-amer percentages. Which means, of course, that the asian-american minority, which has certainly suffered horrific treatment in California, will have a de facto quota imposed–a maximum, not a minimum quota– upon them.

Miers almost certainly would’ve been another pro-aff action, split-the-difference judge in hte O’Connor mold (see her idiotic opinion in the U Michigan case). Isn’t it time the nation got beyond its identity politics madness?

Oct 27, 2005 - 9:44 am 19. jerry:

thibaud:

If Meirs was a weak as you believe she undoubtedly would have been swayed by the strong voices of Roberts, Scalia and Thomas. But then again you may just be falling into the trap of supposing what a Justice will decide based on…well nothing at all.

Oct 27, 2005 - 10:20 am 20. thibaud:

Jerry, the only paper trail we have indicating anything about the woman’s “philosophy” is a series of statements in favor of affirmative action and “diversity”, in her law firm and at the Bar Association. As to her personality, everything we’ve seen indicates that she’s conflict-averse and process-obsessed. I think it’s reasonable to conclude that she would produce more O’Connor-style split the difference opinions on issues where the difference cannot be split. Such as aff action, which inevitably disadvantages one person for each person preferred, and which cannot be justified by the mushy nonsense about the benefits of “diversity” that its partisans always fall back on.

Oct 27, 2005 - 10:28 am 21. jerry:

Thibaud:

I am glad you have such insights. I am sure Justice Souter’s paper trail confirms that he is an orginalist…oh, wait a minute, I forgot, Souter turned out to be a liberal activist judge dispite his paper trail.

You cannot reliably predict a judge’s future performance based on his past decisions at the lower court level.

Oct 27, 2005 - 10:35 am 22. thibaud:

Jerry, you’re descending into incoherence. Now you argue that nothing in the nominee’s record has any predictive value. So why even bother with the advise and consent process? What were the framers thinking?

Oh wait, I forget: nothing can be reliably intuited from a “paper trail.” I’ll check in with you again when President Hillary nominates a left-wing judge to the court in 2011.

Oct 27, 2005 - 10:39 am 23. jerry:

Thibaud:

Obviously, you don’t get sarcasm. The fact is that we do not know what Meirs or any Justice will come out on a particular case. Since these are life time appointments a Judge can start out on one side of the spectrum and move to the other. We have lots of historical examples of this happening.

Oct 27, 2005 - 10:54 am 24. Syl:

PJ

“Right, Richard, Krauthammer is the smartest man in Washington today!”

I love Krauthammer but was horrified at this snit-storm. Krauthammer is smart. He can understand what’s happening in politics. But he would never ever make even a decent political advisor.

He doesn’t know how to game. He can analyze. He can’t control.

And all you expecting your perfect pick to be the next one? Don’t count on it.

My bet is on someone you’ve never even heard of.

And you have to take it.

Oct 27, 2005 - 10:55 am 25. flenser:

If nothing can be determined about a judge from their paper trail or past rulings, then presumably Janice Brown or Edith Jones should have clear sailing through the Senate.

Oct 27, 2005 - 10:56 am 26. Syl:

thibaud

There is doubt that the accusations against Miers concerning her view on affirmative action are correct.

And I’m just going to weigh in with my views. I supported affirmative action when it first arrived on the scene. And I don’t think I made a mistake. (Yes, I know all the arguments, but I felt very strongly that the status quo needed to be shattered first. Kinda like the Middle East, if you know what I mean).

But now I want it ended. And that’s not being contradictory. things like that need a sunset clause. Instead it’s become something that is harmful to those it was supposed to help.

Oct 27, 2005 - 11:00 am 27. thibaud:

Syl, I think it extremely unlikely that a yes-woman like Harriet would have shown the extraordinary moral courage and clarity of mind needed to stand up to the aff-action lobby in this country, a lobby that includes leaders of both parties and nearly the entire Fortune 500.

Oct 27, 2005 - 11:02 am 28. Syl:

xixi

“Pundits congratulating pundits ain’t a hell of a lot different than the MSM congratulating the MSM.”

Amen!

Oct 27, 2005 - 11:03 am 29. Syl:

thibaud

“a yes-woman like Harriet”

I can and am a little more, shall we say, colorful, at another blog. But

that makes you sound like a..a..a..

poopeyhead.

Geez, man, you can be snotty.

You don’t even know the woman. You only want to think you do.

Just lay off.

Oct 27, 2005 - 11:07 am 30. jerry:

Flenser:

My first choice was Janice Rogers Brown because the Democrats would have realized that turning on her would do to black vote what Borking Miguel Estrada did to the Hispanic vote. Schummer would have b****ed and moaned, Hillery would have postured and Kennedy would have fool out of himself once again. It would have been nasty but in the end the Democrtic leadership would have had to let the nomination come to a vote. So it would have been a rough and stormy passage but Rogers would have been confirmed. I also like Janice Brown so it would have been a win-win for me.

However hypocritical I might be in my personal life I am not so in my public life. I have always argued that it’s the President

’s pick, not Charles Krauthammer’s so I support his right to nominate who he wants. The only reason to deny a President’s choice is moral turpitude.

Oct 27, 2005 - 11:07 am 31. Inspector Callahan:

if the religious right hated her so much, she must have had her good points

ARRRGGHHH!!!!

Could you please point out to me which religious right leaders opposed this nomination? I know some who didn’t oppose her: Dobson, Robertson, et al.

This is a media and left created meme that somehow intelligent people have bought and paid for.

Don’t believe it - the religious right were rooting for this justice - it was the libertarian-leaning right that was so adamantly against this choice.

TV (Harry)

Oct 27, 2005 - 11:31 am 32. Kevin P:

Flenser:

I am not crying about Miers being booted. But I would hate to have to rely on McCain and Specter for their support of a Brown, Luttig, or any of the other picks that many republicans, including myself, would have picked. Bush had been very consistent with the type of judges he had picked. Miers came out of the blue and my fear is that he did do a head count and he found no support from Specter or any of the gang of 14. McCains ego allows him to rationalize any of his stupid political moves. Counting on him to act in his best self interest is a gamble. He is a beltway pol and the lure of the approval of Russert and the bulk of the chattering class is strong. The man needs to be loved by the beltway elite. If he was thinking of the White House he would have never kneecapped Bush with the gang of 14 scheme. Specter is fighting cancer and he may not run again. I don’t know if re-election is high on his things to do list.

I have been trying to figure out why President Bush picked Miers and the only logical reason I could see was that he counted heads and he didn’t have the votes. I hope I am wrong.

Oct 27, 2005 - 11:31 am 33. Kevin P:

didn’t have the votes for a Luttig or Brown.

Oct 27, 2005 - 11:32 am 34. flenser:

Jerry

I support any presidents right to nominate whoever he wants. I also support the right of any senator to vote for or against any nominee based on whatever grounds they see fit. And I support the right of the citizens in this republic to pressure both senators and presidents to do what they want them to do.

It’s that whole “checks and balances” thing. The system may be messy, but it tends to produce good outcomes over time.

Oct 27, 2005 - 11:34 am 35. Inspector Callahan:

And all you expecting your perfect pick to be the next one? Don’t count on it. My bet is on someone you’ve never even heard of.

Syl,

Could you explain this logic? Because I don’t get it.

Are you telling me that when Bush’s own base objects strongly to a Supreme Court pick (a base he needs to survive politically, and for his party to survive), that Bush is going to spite them all? Are you kidding me?

If that happens, then the Democrats were right - our president is the most idiotic man to ever hold office. I, myself, have a hard time believing that will happen.

TV (Harry)

Oct 27, 2005 - 11:40 am 36. flenser:

Kevin P

If Luttig or Brown had been nominated, and defeated with the help of McCain and Specter, how would we be any worse off then we are today?

In some important ways we would be better off. The current system was designed by the Gang of 14 to allow them to avoid having to take a position on issues that they feel uncomfortable with. It also prevents the voters from holding them responsible. A vote by DeWine against Luttig, for example, would finish off any hope he has of winning in ‘06.

Getting some acountability back into the system is a good thing in and of itself.

Oct 27, 2005 - 11:43 am 37. Rick Ballard:

McCain

Graham

DeWine

Warner

Chaffee

Snowe

Collins

Voinovich

Specter

Total = 9 Senators for whom the most charitable description concerning adherence to party discipline would be “extremely unreliable”.

Votes needed to change filibuster rule = 51. Republican votes that can be counted upon 55-9=46.

Good luck on Luttig or Brown.

“Fought for Bork and Got Kennedy”

I hope the snitwits aren’t allowed to operate heavy machinery. Come to think of it - no problem - they don’t have the brains to turn the key in the ignition.

Oct 27, 2005 - 11:43 am 38. flenser:

Rick

Would it be better to not fight for Bork and get Kennedy? That seems to be what you are proposing.

If the “leadership” of the Republican party cannot impose any discipline on their own members, then it falls to the party supporters to do so. Schedule a vote. Let senators vote as they wish. The President actually has considerable power to twist arms if they wish to use it, but if this one does not wish to do so, fine. That in itself gives us useful information.

Oct 27, 2005 - 12:02 pm 39. jerry:

Rick:

You (and others) are too pessmistic about Brown.

A vote against Brown by McCain dooms his Presidential bid. Regardless of how the Democrats and MSM paint Brown they will turn it around on it in 2008 if he were to get the nomination. Sabotaging another Bush nominee who has the right credentials will turn the base against him. Oppostion is not choice McCain can make. If McCain goes with Brown then everyone else except Lincoln Chafee will follow. Can the Democrats oppose a vote on a black woman for SCOTUS? I don’t think so. It will be George Wallace standing in the school house door again. They will lost enough of the black vote to cost them the 2008 election.

My guess is that Brown would be very effective in her testimony and would make it difficult for any ambitious Democrat to vote against her. I think she would garner 60-70 yes votes.

Oct 27, 2005 - 12:06 pm 40. Rick Ballard:

Flenser - Jerry,

I agree that a fight is necessary and will be a good thing. That fight must begin with the Spineless Seven Dwarves - not the Dems. Had the snitwits framed the issue from that viewpoint I would have no problem whatsoever with the opposition to Miers.

Win the battle with the spineless Senators acceding to discipline and any number of policy objectives become realizable.

Oct 27, 2005 - 12:24 pm 41. flenser:

Rick

Thats all well and good, but first the WH needs to show some willingness to actually fight the Seven.

So before we can begin to persuade McCain and Co we need to persuade the WH. Opposition to Miers was that persuasion. We cannot simply apply pressure to McCain so that he goes to Bush on bended knee and promises to do whatever is needed. Pressure has to be applied to the WH to start standing up to the Senate. (On a whole range of issues, I might add.)

Oct 27, 2005 - 12:45 pm 42. Rick Ballard:

Flenser,

The problem with that is that Bush will honor the deal he cut with McCain in ‘03. Slapping McCain down (which is what smacking the Spineless Seven would entail) would be very problematic.

I also doubt that “going over the heads” could work for Bush (or anyone else) anymore. The change in information channels that is underway makes it very difficult generate a message to a broad audience.

Oct 27, 2005 - 1:03 pm 43. Ed Poinsett:

Bush did count the votes and he knew he could win with Miers but not some of the others. The problem is the plantation owners lynched her on her way to the courthouse for her hearing.

Oct 27, 2005 - 1:05 pm 44. Terrye:

thibaud:

I remember not so long ago you supported the nomination.

I guess I missed the part where you turned into George Will.

Oct 27, 2005 - 1:12 pm 45. Terrye:

I am disgusted with the right… with the pundits and with all the hypocrites who said that the president deserved his nominee and the nominee deserved an up or down vote.

They should have added so long as she is in the right club and is “one of us”.

I thought that sabotaging people, cherry picking quotes, deliberately humiliating people and in general acting like obnoxious teenagers was the Leftie way of doing things.

It seems I was wrong. Acting badly is an equal oppurtunity character flaw.

In truth the Democrats are starting to look less extreme to me now that the fanatical right wing elites have taken all that silly Constitutional stuff about the president’s rights etc and showed us how unimportant they really are.

Like they say, it is not what you know, it is who you know…

It will be interesting to see what the Democrats do to the next nominee, after all what few rules there might have been in terms of public decorum have been pretty well destroyed by the elite.

And I do mean elite, according to polls about 73% of the GOP felt that Miers should be confirmed.

I guess the Democrats were not entirely wrong when they talked about the vast right wing conspiracy.

Oct 27, 2005 - 1:21 pm 46. Syl:

Callahan

“Could you explain this logic? Because I don’t get it.”

Let’s just call it woman’s intuition. M’kay?

I think you don’t understand that the base of the party isn’t the entire party. That all the planks on your platform aren’t even supported by the rest of the party.

This snit-fest was abominable. And it turned a lot of the middle against ‘the base’. Plus many of the Christian conservatives.

So where does that leave you when you threaten to take your toys?

Bush is not your hostage. He won’t behave like one either. So I fully expect his next nominee will surprise you.

Oct 27, 2005 - 1:24 pm 47. Patrick Tyson:

The letter asked Ms. Miers to respond within a week. Mr. Specter said he had scheduled hearings on her confirmation to begin Nov. 7, overruling Democratic objections that they did not have enough information to evaluate her because of her scant record on constitutional issues before joining the White House. Both Mr. Specter and Mr. Leahy said they would not set any deadline for the conclusion of the hearings.

“If the questions are not answered or their answer is incomplete, as they have been, then it’s going to be a long hearing indeed,” Mr. Leahy said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/20/politics/politicsspecial1/20confirm.html?ei=5088&en=8bf886c441a05a7e&ex=1287460800&adxnnl=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&adxnnlx=1129795645-fqXc4RGRIJTtbhn+i8GuDw

I wouldn’t be surprised if late yesterday or early last night they (the nominee and her confirmation team) went through what they had come up with, came to a decision that they couldn’t win—only prolong, and asked the President to fold ‘em.

Oct 27, 2005 - 1:26 pm 48. syn:

Actually, it was the hard conservative right which aborted the Miers nomination. The Extreme Conservative Right as in John Bircher aka tranformed into Buckley which immediately ursurped the President (the one we all elected) by pulling Meirs life support system the moment they heard her name because the President did not utter The Hard Conservative (Bircher) Right’s choice.

Funny, I don’t recall Sir Charles Krauthammer on the ballot box last November.

Nothing about religion at all.

Oct 27, 2005 - 1:33 pm 49. Kevin P:

Roger:

The L.A. Times is starting to gin up the “the Christian Right” sunk Miers myth. Will, Krauthamer, the entire Corner staff, Dick Morris, vitually the entier cream of the crop of the non-religous right led the anti-Miers crusade from the start. Will even went after the “crude” anti-abortion wing of the party for supporting Mier and he implied that they were backing her because of some sort of pre-arranged agreement on Roe. No doubt there were many Christian Right who didn’t like Miers but to try to tag the CR as the leaders of the assault does not hold up to any honest scrutiny. Miers received very little open support from any Republicans but Dobson, Colson, Robertson were among the first to back her and President Bush.

Oct 27, 2005 - 1:45 pm 50. Always right:

I posted the following on another blog, but the disgust is still the same.

Congratulations to all of those who opposed Ms. Miers’ nomination from the get-go.

The conservative base may think you are entitled to the Browns/Lutigs, because you helped Bush won the 2004 election and want an all-out war with the SCOTUS. Guess what, you completely turned off this ex-Dem. Good luck next time you think you can win elections with just the base.

So far we have not even heard from the nominee except during her acceptance speech promising to upheld the Constitution. Openness? Fair-mindedness from the right? I see no difference with the same shrillness/tactics from the far-left. I’ll give you an analogy. This episode is an “abortion”!

Oct 27, 2005 - 3:31 pm 51. PJ:

Syl,

I meant that Krauthammer predicted the exit strategy, and he hit the nail on the head.

As to her qualifications, I’m no expert. But even moderates were disappointed with her nomination, after Roberts, who proved himself quite a star.

Oct 27, 2005 - 4:32 pm 52. thedragonflies:

Miers withdrew because of her poor performance in her one on one meetings with the Senators and in the preparation practices. She was an unknown who had to wow people to get through, and she didn’t.

Unfortunately, now the Dems will be able to say that any conservative that W puts forward is defacto an extremist put forward to appease the hard core right wing attackers of Miers.

And, the Dems will filibuster, and they will make the filibuster hold because of McCain and his gang of 14. Then, W is so crippled that even the prosecution of the war is in doubt.

I think this may be a disaster, but it it W’s fault. He put forward a woman who was in over her head. I know politics is the art of the possible, not the science of the optimal, but W showed too little art in this choice. He needs to recover brilliantly. I send him my prayers.

Oct 27, 2005 - 4:35 pm 53. Terrye:

dragonflies:

I disagree. Bush had a right to put forward his nominee. We will never know what her qualifications were because the right wing stabbed Bush in the back and went after this candidate with a single minded ferocity that was absolutely without merit.

As for the Demcorats, nothing they can do will be any more underhanded than the other side of the aisle has already done.

Personally I am tired of right wing Republicans behaving badly and then blaiming everyone from the Democrats to the president.

Believe it or not we are not a land of John Birchers and while I agree that I am not really interested in left wing activist judges I am just as opposed to right wing activist judges.

Truth is I feel used, just like a lot of other centrists who have been let know [in no uncertain terms] that we are just not the right kind of people. I doubt if I could pass their pissy little litmus test either. Not just for brains, it goes without saying I am not smart enough….but I am not top drawer or pure right enough either..I come in handy every other November, but my kind needs to be seen on election day and not heard.

Oct 27, 2005 - 4:58 pm 54. richard mcenroe:

So let’s see what this costs the conservative movment, next nomination:

When the Democrats demand documents, we can’t object, because so did bloggers, pundits and politicians on the right.

When the Democrats demand firm answers to litmus test questions, we can’t object, because so did we.

When the Democrats make the nominee’s religious beliefs an issue, we can’t object, because so did bloggers, pundits and politicians on the right.

When the Democrats run anonymously-funded attack ads, we can’t complain, because so did bloggers, pundits and politicians on the right.

Seems like a pretty high price to pay so The Corner could high-five each other and a bunch of middle-aged white guys in bow-ties could take charge of the invitations list. Guess that’s why I ain’t a pundit.

Oct 27, 2005 - 5:26 pm 55. thedragonflies:

Terrye,

I agree that Miers was savaged by the right, unfairly. She was Borked by the right. I am appalled.

I was firmly behind her nomination until I noticed that she was not getting positive reviews from the Senators that she was talking to. She did not perform when she had her chance. So, she lost.

It is clear to me that the Supreme Court judgeship is something to be won, not something to be given. Roberts had Coulter come out in a vitriolic attack against him when he was first announced because of his lack of controversy in his career, but he performed so outstandingly in the one-on-ones that few piled on behind her.

David Frum and The Corner came out with guns ablaze when she was announced, and she could have shut them up, I believe, if she had performed to the degree that Senators vouched for her intelligence, knowledge, command, integrity, character, etc. as a result of their conversations with her. They didn’t. She’s gone.

I am sorry that this happened because I believe it hurts Republicans, compromises the Court, and may hurt the war effort. It guarantees a fillibuster on the next nominee, and probably a defeat.

Oct 27, 2005 - 5:39 pm 56. Rick Ballard:

The Dragonflies,

It is now up to the justly fired from the WH Frum and Mr. ‘What Nepotism?’ Kristol to steer Dopey McCain through the intricacies of a process that he lacks the intellectual capacity to deal with.

Unfortunately, neither do they. Perhaps someone will hold a seminar for them, delivered in one syllable words, as to the meaning of “Pyrrhic victory”.

Oct 27, 2005 - 6:02 pm 57. thibaud:

terrye,

thibaud: I remember not so long ago you supported the nomination

That was before I learned Miers was Bush’s personal lawyer– his consigliere, in effect– when he was horsin’ around in Dallas during the early 1990s. As I put it to Frum (scroll to bottom http://frum.nationalreview.com/archives/10112005.asp), I was…

…at first inclined to think Miers nomination might have some logic:

1) saw merit in story of Harriet as sleeper, a hardened outsider who made her way up through/against the good ol boy world of Dallas legal ciricles;

2) can see merit in notion of common sense, commingled with humility, checking Supremes’ arrogance

3) can’t be worse than O’Connor.

Then I read Howard Fineman’s article that discusses Miers’ role as one of Bush’s “mother hens”: strong, older women who kept him out of trouble in Dallas in the early 1990s, from Harken Energy shenanigans to beating drunk driving raps. Miers was Bush’s consigliere in Dallas during that period. There can be no doubt that Bush is now seeking some kind of protection– perhaps against decisions that revisit his torture policy– for his admin in future cases. The appointment stinks to heaven, and must be withdrawn as soon as possible.

At a minimum, It’s clear that this woman is another O’Connor-style lightweight who will try to appease all sides with more fudge-vat reasoning of the sort O’Connor showed in the U Michigan case.

Oct 27, 2005 - 6:16 pm 58. Terrye:

Dragonflies:

I did hear a few brave souls come out in support but I think some may have been afraid they would get the same treatment she did, the atmosphere sucked.

Oct 27, 2005 - 6:20 pm 59. thedragonflies:

Unfortunately for the Republic, I believe that McCain is exactly where he wants to be - the guy that controls whether or not a candidate can get past the filibuster. He thus he becomes more powerful than any other in the Senate, and - what a dream come true for McCain - more powerful than the President on this issue.

I believe that McCain wants to be the one who blesses, or condemns, Bush’s nominee. I think he is waiting for W to ask him permission for putting forth a nominee. He even may require a public apology from Bush for his smear tactics against him in the primaries in 2000. Vengeance is taking a long time coming, but I think he is working on it, and may get it.

Oct 27, 2005 - 6:21 pm 60. Terrye:

thibaud:

Oh for heavens sake. Another hit job done on the woman by the press without benefit of self defence. I thought you were more fair than that.

The fact that Bush had dealings with Miers in the past has nothing to do with your obsession with Bush’s nonexistent torture policy. I simply do not beleive that there is such a thing. Most of the people who believe there is have no idea what they are talking about. No matter how many reports there are saying there is no torture policy, they still cling to the notion. I bet you have never been in the military. You have never worked in a jail. You have never guarded a prisoner, especially one who threw body fluids in your face.

Washington is a small town, some of these nominees have been carried along for years by special interest groups in the hopes that their people would be selected. That is just another form of cronyism.

Miers was a real lawyer, which meant she had dealings with a lot of people and businesses, from Microsoft to Disney to the Republican party to the Bush campaign.

At no point did Bush make any attempt to hide his connection with Miers. If there were questions about that the time to ask would have been the hearings. If people felt the connection was too close they could have voted her down. But this smear job just makes the conservatives look like hypocrites.

Now people can go back to bitching about how Bush’s father picked Souter, a total stranger with a good conservative record instead of someone he knew and had personal knowledge of.

Oct 27, 2005 - 6:34 pm 61. thibaud:

Terrye - when you write things like Bush’s nonexistent torture policy. I simply do not beleive that there is such a thing, it’s obvious that you need to get some air. Perhaps a long tall drink as well, and in any case a good night’s sleep before you post again.

Cheers,

t

Oct 27, 2005 - 7:36 pm 62. thibaud:

terrye - one more point:

Another hit job done on the woman by the press

Come to Dallas and talk to some folks here in the Park Cities, Bush and Cheney and Harriet’s old stomping grounds (I live a little over a mile from SMU). After I began asking around among people in Highland Park, I realized that Miers’ nomination is viewed as an embarrassment by the old-timers here. PS: this is ground zero of Bush Ranger/Pioneer country.

If you don’t want to take my word for it, then listen to fellow local Virginia Postrel, who’s better dialed in to the SMU/Dallas scene than I (her husband teaches at the Cox school of Business there, and no doubt knows my neighbor Berry Cox much better than I ever will). Read through the dozen or so Miers entries of hers linked at the bottom of her latest blog entry: http://www.dynamist.com/weblog/archives/001934.html

Oct 27, 2005 - 8:34 pm 63. JBR:

I must respectfully disagree with the anti-anti-Miers crowd here. The woman was not qualified to be on the Supreme Court, and Will, Frum, Lowry, etc. did the President and the country a favor by standing up to him and telling him so. Can anyone imagine liberal pundits telling a Democratic President that he had gone wrong in nominating his unqualified personal attorney? I do not say that Ms. Miers is unqualified because of where she went to school, where she practiced law, because she is a woman, etc. I am a 40 year old man, I went to fancy schools (college and law school), have been a partner in a prominent law firm, and am currently an internal lawyer at a well known financial institution. Along the way some pretty fancy people have praised my legal skills. It would, however, never occur to me that I am remotely qualified to be on the Supreme Court, nor would I be after 10-20 additional years of my current type of work. I am not qualified to be on the Supreme Court because I know virtually nothing about appellate litigation and I know relatively little about Constitutional theory. Ms. Miers is not qualified for precisely the same reason.

Oct 27, 2005 - 8:51 pm 64. thedragonflies:

It seems to me that saying Bush has a “torture policy” is like saying that a baker has a crumb policy. Producing crumbs is not what the baker is up to, but sometimes crumbs happen. You try to minimize both and clean up both.

Oct 27, 2005 - 8:53 pm 65. Luther McLeod:

Forgive me for breaking all the rules here, but, thibaud, you are sometimes such an a**. Emphasis on the lowercase. No, I can’t debate you on the rarefied intellectual level that you so presume to inhabit. But I can recognize BS when I see it. Close your eyes to the greater evils in this world, seek that utopian perfection which you feel this country and its leaders, and no one else, is/should be capable of and held accountable for. Show me links to real torture perpetrated by this country. And you know what I mean. There is no country in the world that has as many eyeballs on it as the US. No country in the world that is held to higher standards. No country in the world that is expected to be RIGHT all the time. What sanctimonious crap you spout. Sorry, but you hit a nerve.

Oct 27, 2005 - 8:59 pm 66. thibaud:

Luther- you too need to take a walk. Yes, the NYT and Bush’s critics have vastly over-hyped the issue. Yes, there are “ticking bomb” situations where torture may be– emphasis on may be, not is– justified. But as the British found out in Ulster, and the French in Algeria before them, and our own military is learning now, torture is a dumb and counterproductive tactic that should be avoided in all but a tiny handful of extreme circumstances.

Now, please educate yourself on the facts. Specifically, what our military itself has said, and done, about acts of torture committed by their members: foolish, cruel, utterly useless acts that didn’t prevent any “ticking bombs” from going off, while giving kicks to a dozen or so badly-supervised morons.

Major General Antonio Taguba’s report http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/reports/2004/800-mp-bde.htm lists six suspects: Staff Sergeant Ivan (Chip) Frederick II, Specialist Charles A. Graner, Sergeant Javal Davis, Specialist Megan Ambuhl, Specialist Sabrina Harman, and Jeremy Sivits (now demoted to Private). A seventh suspect is Private Lynndie England, who became pregnant and was reassigned to Fort Bragg, North Carolina. The six faced charges that include conspiracy, dereliction of duty, cruelty toward prisoners, maltreatment, assault, and indecent acts.

1) Specialist Charles Graner was found guilty on January 14, 2005 of all charges, including conspiracy to maltreat detainees, failing to protect detainees from abuse, cruelty, and maltreatment, as well as charges of assault, indecency, adultery, and obstruction of justice. On January 15, 2005, he was sentenced to ten years in federal prison.

2) Staff Sgt. Ivan Frederick pled guilty on October 20, 2004 to conspiracy, dereliction of duty, maltreatment of detainees, assault and committing an indecent act in exchange for other charges being dropped. His abuses included making three prisoners masturbate. He also punched one prisoner so hard in the chest that he needed resuscitation. He was sentenced to eight years in prison, forfeiture of pay, a dishonorable discharge and a reduction in rank to private.

3) Jeremy Sivits was sentenced on May 19, 2004 by a special court-martial (less severe than “general”; confinement sentence limited to one year) to the maximum one-year sentence, in addition to being discharged for bad conduct and demoted, upon his plea of guilty.

4) Specialist Armin Cruz of the 325th Military Intelligence Battalion was sentenced on September 11, 2004 to eight months confinement, reduction in rank to private and a bad conduct discharge in exchange for his testimony against other soldiers.[6] (http://wireservice.wired.com/wired/story.asp?section=Breaking&storyId=939300&tw=wn_wire_story)

5) Sabrina Harman was sentenced on May 17, 2005 to six months in prison and a bad conduct discharge after being convicted on six of the seven counts. She had faced a maximum sentence of 5 years.

6) Megan Ambuhl was convicted on October 30, 2004, of dereliction of duty and sentenced to reduction in rank to private and loss of a half-month

Oct 27, 2005 - 9:39 pm 67. Rick Ballard:

“What sanctimonious crap you spout.”

Squared and cubed, as his followup post on “torture” demonstrates.

Oct 27, 2005 - 10:49 pm 68. WichitaBoy:

thibaud,

Luther and Terrye are absolutely right.

What you have given us are six examples of people who mistreated prisoners. Worse goes on nearly every day in every prison in the world.

Of the two links you provided, one seems to be dead while the worst part of Taguba’s report says exactly the following:

I find that the intentional abuse of detainees by military police personnel included the following acts:

a. (S) Punching, slapping, and kicking detainees; jumping on their naked feet;

b. (S) Videotaping and photographing naked male and female detainees;

c. (S) Forcibly arranging detainees in various sexually explicit positions for photographing;

d. (S) Forcing detainees to remove their clothing and keeping them naked for several days at a time;

e. (S) Forcing naked male detainees to wear women’s underwear;

f. (S) Forcing groups of male detainees to

masturbate themselves while being photographed and videotaped;

g. (S) Arranging naked male detainees in a pile and then jumping on them;

h. (S) Positioning a naked detainee on a

MRE Box, with a sandbag on his head, and

attaching wires to his fingers, toes, and penis to simulate electric torture;

i. (S) Writing “I am a Rapest” (sic) on

the leg of a detainee alleged to have forcibly raped a 15-year old fellow detainee, and then

photographing him naked;

j. (S) Placing a dog chain or strap around

a naked detainee’s neck and having a female

Soldier pose for a picture;

k. (S) A male MP guard having sex with a

female detainee;

l. (S) Using military working dogs

(without muzzles) to intimidate and frighten

detainees, and in at least one case biting and

severely injuring a detainee;

m. (S) Taking photographs of dead Iraqi detainees.

(ANNEXES 25 and 26)

…

8. (U) In addition, several detainees also described the following acts of abuse, which

under the circumstances, I find credible based

on the clarity of their statements and

supporting evidence provided by other

witnesses

(ANNEX 26):

a. (U) Breaking chemical lights and pouring

the phosphoric liquid on detainees;

b. (U) Threatening detainees with a charged

9mm pistol;

c. (U) Pouring cold water on naked detainees;

d. (U) Beating detainees with a broom handle and a chair;

e. (U) Threatening male detainees with rape;

f. (U) Allowing a military police guard to

stitch the wound of a detainee who was injured

after being slammed against the wall in his cell;

g. (U) Sodomizing a detainee with a chemical light and perhaps a broom stick.

h. (U) Using military working dogs to frighten and intimidate detainees with threats of

attack, and in one instance actually biting a

detainee.

All very heinous stuff and I’m very sorry that it occurred. But we’ve known about this for a long time, and none of it–I repeat, none–is “torture”. I notice that even you were able to admit that all the relevant parties were tried and found guilty.

By the organization being run by the Bush administration.

I’ll repeat Terrye’s guesses: I bet you have never been in the military. You have never worked in a jail. You have never guarded a prisoner, especially one who threw body fluids in your face.

I bet that’s right, too.

I expect you have very little experience with life “on the other side of the tracks”. I’m happy for you that your life has been so pampered, and I’m particularly glad you get to live as you tell us in the tonier parts of Dallas with the “right” people who “know” about Harriet Miers, but I’m afraid that like poor Andrew Sullivan your life experiences have left you entirely unqualified to judge what constitutes a “torture policy”.

While you may have convinced yourself that you are supporting the war, in fact by ignorantly repeating the “Bush torture policy” propaganda you are personally inflicting more damage than a raft of car bombs. Congratulations.

Not that I expect that thought to overcome the delicious frisson of self-righteousness you’re feeling these days.

The six examples you have given us are not examples of “torture”, they show no proof whatsoever of a “policy”, and no evidence that Bush or anyone he knows or even anyone they know had anything to do with it has been adduced.

I guess that’s three strikes. Thanks for playing.

Oct 27, 2005 - 11:20 pm 69. Patrick Tyson:

While you may have convinced yourself that you are supporting the war, in fact by ignorantly repeating the “Bush torture policy” propaganda you are personally inflicting more damage than a raft of car bombs.

Oct 27, 2005 - 11:47 pm 70. thibaud:

You’re right. Taguba was brainwashed. Those courts martial were simply star chambers set up for the benefit of Andrew Sullivan– they never existed in reality. Our troops haven’t tortured anyone, have not killed any innocent prisoners. It’s all a Big Lie.

Sort of like the notion that one cannot ever admit that a leadership one supports had made foolish and grievous mistakes, cannot learn from such mistakes, and cannot correct them. And, yes, Miers was a brilliant choice done in by yet another anti-W cabal. They seem to be proliferating, don’t they?

Oct 28, 2005 - 6:14 am 71. thibaud:

When did Roger’s Place morph into the war room for the My W, Right or Wrong movement?

Oct 28, 2005 - 6:15 am

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed) remember personal info?
Comments: